Reflections on Theology, History, and Culture

Worship

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.

The most common name applied to Jesus in Revelation is κύριος, which is used some twenty three times.[1] Occasionally this designation comes within a larger title—such as “king of kings and Lord of lords” (17:14)[2]—but many times it occurs as a simple designator of who Jesus is, appearing in place of his name. Building on the connections between κύριος and Hebrew Adonai, Cullmann argues that any connection of Jesus to the title “Lord” must recognize the theological and philological implications of that term in its Hebrew/Aramaic context.[3] For Cullmann, one consequence of the application of κύριος to Jesus was that early Christians could apply to him “all the Old Testament passages which speak about God.”[4] Thus when John refers to Jesus as κύριος—even in a seemingly offhanded manner (22:20–1)—that title remains full of theological importance, identifying the Lord Jesus with the κύριος Almighty. Continue reading →

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.

In Revelation 19:12–13, Jesus is said to have “a name [ὄνομα] written that no one knows but himself…and the name by which he is called the Word of God.”[1] The meaning of this secret ὄνομα has long been a topic of speculation, including postulation as this passage as a reference to Sophiology, Gnostic myths, the “Destroyer” of Wisdom 18:15–16, and/or the “Angel of the Lord” of Exodus 12:23.[2] J.E. Fossum suggests that this final possibility—the Yahweh Angel of Judaism—is here identified with the Logos, thereby distinguishing the Lord—the proper name of God—with the Logos himself.[3] If this understanding is correct, John applied the ὄνομα of God to Jesus in Revelation 19 as a means of classifying him as both the Jewish Angel of the Lord and as an instrumental force in creating the world. Continue reading →

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.

New Testament Studies has long been concerned with understanding the theological implications of early Christian titles for Jesus.[1] Before examining the names applied to Jesus in the Apocalypse, a word of caution should be offered about these titles, for they are often “more strange and complicated than we assume they are.”[2] Yet the names given in Revelation are not so complicated that they are beyond providing insight into who early Christians perceived Jesus to be.[3] While much has been made about the names which are not applied to Jesus in Revelation—most notably his human titles, “Wisdom”, and “God”[4]—the concern here is with names John felt comfortable ascribing to Jesus and what those names indicate. Further, although there are a wide variety of titles utilized in Revelation—including “Son of God” (2:18), “beginning of God’s creation” (3:14), “the Amen” (3:14), “lion from the tribe of Judah, root of David” (5:5), and “Word [λόγος] of God” (19:13)[5]—this section examines four of Revelation’s most prominent designations: Son of Man, the Name, Alpha and Omega, and Lord (κύριος). Continue reading →

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.

Any interpretation of Revelation must, as a matter of primary hermeneutic importance, address the topic of how to deal with the whole of the Apocalypse of John. As demonstrated Steven Gregg’s masterful work, Revelation: Four Views, throughout Christian history there have been four major ways to read the Apocalypse:[1] the historicist, futurist, idealist (or spiritualist), and preterist views. Continue reading →

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.

While early Christological studies have rightly moved toward an “Early High” standard, the edges of this model remain underdeveloped, especially the Christology of the Apocalypse of John.[1] This tendency begins with Bousset’s effectively neglect of Revelation, an influence which has trickled down into contemporary examinations of early Christology. For example, Robert M. Grant’s classic treatment, The Early Christian Doctrine of God, only references Revelation three times in its entirety, each time in a footnote.[2] Gregory K. Beale’s voluminous tome, The Book of Revelation, also neglects a summary of Christology, despite the fact that numerous christological insights are noted in the commentary section.[3] Likewise, I. Howard Marshall relegates Revelation’s input to marginalia and footnotes.[4]Continue reading →

After nearly 2,000 years, the study of Christology—the study of the person, nature, and role of Jesus[1]—continues as a popular, relevant, and important realm of theological inquiry. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that Christology forms the economic basis for all truly orthodox Christian theology.[2] Studies of the history of Christology—especially the Christology of the earliest followers of Jesus and those who composed the writings now included in the New Testament—have become particularly important in recent decades, as the streams of Roman Catholic ressourcement, Orthodox Ιερά Παράδοση, and Protestant ad fontes merge into greater emphasis on the early Church. Continue reading →

“O Come, O Come Emmanuel” is a popular Christmas hymn written by an anonymous Latin author in the twelfth century and translated into English in 1851 by John Mason Neale. The hymn contains nine verses, all of which contain statements about Christ. The name “Jesus” and title “Christ” do not actually appear in the hymn; however a plethora of other titles are used to refer to the coming to Israel. This is quite clearly a hymn of Advent and Christmas, as it is written as if in the distant past, reflecting an Old Testament view of things (as we shall see with the names and titles used below), a view that welcomes the coming of the messiah to Israel. The refrain, “Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee , O Israel” demonstrates the position of Christ as coming savior of Israel, the messiah figure of the Old Testament prophets. Continue reading →

Between the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), many controversies erupted from the Alexandrian and Antiochene positions on the person of Christ.[16] The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) condemned the belief of Apollinarius that Christ only had one will, that of the divine.[17] While the Church believed that Christ had a divine will, there was too much scriptural and philosophical support for the position that Christ had a human will as well. How else can one explain Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42), and other verses that seem to indicate that Christ had a human will? For God to be the redeemer of man, He needed to include full humanity as Irenaeus and Tertullian had emphasized years before.[18] Continue reading →

C. S. Lewis once said that if the incarnation happened, “it was the central event in the history of the earth.” What is the incarnation? And why has it been such an important area of theological consideration since the earliest days of Christianity? The term ‘incarnation’ may be defined as “a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.”[1] For the Christian tradition, the man who has been understood as deified has been Jesus of Nazareth; but the Christian claim of Jesus as God, not merely as one who embodied God, historically presented a plethora of questions to the early Christian theologians.

In determining what the incarnation means for Christians, the Early Church Fathers sought to determine more concerning the person Jesus. Maurice Wiles writes that “the heart of Christian faith is the person of Christ and what God has done in him.”[2] The orthodox Christian Church has always professed monotheism based upon the Jewish tradition and the scriptures.[3] Given this monotheistic belief however, the early Church viewed Jesus not as a simple messenger of God, but worshiped Him as the Son of God.[4] This is especially evident in the writing’s of Irenaeus, who refers to Jesus as “the Word, the Son of God.” [5] Continue reading →

Magnum opus remains a term best reserved for the crowning achievement of a scholar’s life and work, the pinnacle at the top of decades of research, writing, and sharpening arguments. These great works comprehensively examine and engage their field of work and, at their best, even redefine the field for years to come. Such is Larry W. Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 746pp.). Hurtado’s magnum opus—now approaching fifteen years old—not only transformed the field of early Christian studies, but also continues to offer insights and ways forward for contemporary scholars. Continue reading →